I tried doing the math by hand but I’m very bad with statistics, can someone who is good with statistics proof this strategy? Say you have even odds in a fight your thinking of taking, you win ~50% and you lose ~same IPC overall as opponent. Should you take the fight because attacker can choose to stay or flea vs defense doesn’t? If there are 2 scenarios A) the dice of first round go in your favor or B) the dice go against you and you now have sub 50% and bad IPC then couldn’t you just retreat if B happens and push if A happens? The computer calculating expected losses is doing so under the impression that you stay regardless of outcome so it’s the sum of all negative outcomes + sum of all positives. But if you leave when it goes against you you reduce the sum of negative outcomes partially while I believe reducing the sum of all positive outcomes by less. So you can achieve positive trades from equal fights by having the ability to choose if your going for their full stack or not.
[1942 SE] Balancing the game suggestion
-
@Imperious-Leader They cant really trade or have real options… even those UKR tanks are getting lost most of the time.
-
@Imperious-Leader The last time I introduced new players I heard myself talking saying “yeah, Russia, you really have to do this 9/12 to start … also hope it goes well … if it goes really badly we might just want to reset the board rather than wasting a handful of hours.”
They were new to the game but very knowledgeable gamers, so this led to a series of questions and discussions. We then talked about just taking a statistical average of the 9/12 and writing a new setup reference, then next game starting with a Russian rule of non-combat only first round, so we don’t have this problem.
-
@Imperious-Leader If your argument is purely that a meta exists then your argument is illogical. If you roll 6 d20s and get 4,8,9,11,15,17 then 17 is the highest. If 17 wasn’t the highest a different number would be because that’s how numbers work. If your argument is that the gap between 1st and 2nd is too big then that’s at least debatable (although probably wrong).
-
@8d88 I made a post for this here…
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/40631/1942-2nd-ed-aa42-skip-the-9-12-setup
I think my home games are going to use this modded setup for the time being.
I’m still curious about giving Russia some more latitude too. -
@Imperious-Leader Seeing as how Russia has the coolest bomber sculpts, I’d like to see russia start with one.
-
@lilkdrizzle My interpretation of the argument is that Russia is just too handcuffed
-
@8d88 if you think that the USSR is too weak, just give them a Bomber in Russia. It opens up a few more options for them.
-
@Faramir yea but Germany get compensation too . moving planes in UKR out of the way helps them too no? Now Germany attacking 7 is more predictable and egypt gets more so thats out G1. UK also gets like 1 DD, and the CA off Trafalgar is moved to 12 but can still help, not kill German Medd BB, but fight subs. It just makes sense.
-
@Faramir It’s not that I think Russia is too weak necessarily, I’m not sure, but I would like to see them have some more strategic options in general. So far I think playing Russia is more interesting in this version than in classic and revised but it would be nice if playing Russia was a bit more fun and flexible. I’m not an historical accuracy fanatic but I’m curious to know if Russia was really this vulnerable in real life, my guess is they probably weren’t. I like the suggestions from Imperious Leader here. Giving Russia a bomber and Letting Germany keep their bomber safe was something I was considering.
-
@8d88 but also change up the far east group. it wasn’t only infantry, it was mechanized, 1 tank, 1 art and 2-3 infantry.
The Manchukuo force should have similar composition. and the Americans in China should have 1-2 more infantry, and 1 artillery at least. China had 500 divisions of admittedly poor quality, but that’s reduced to Japanese army road apples. -
Assuming LHTR 3.0 but moving German Bomber out of Ukraine and giving USSR a bomber while letting the Fighter in Ukraine can it be enough to keep balance in same zone as LHTR?
-
@baron-Münchhausen Definitely makes the initial sea battles or taking Egypt easier for Germany. But would give Russia more options.
-
@8d88 well the bomber can be placed in Finland so it will only be used in 7, that makes for no disaster for Germany in7 and not a ruined game. Its hard for Germany to fail in 7 and lose a plane or two and still allow a UK BB
-
@baron-Münchhausen Im trying to give all players options and avoid some of the Meta lines of play. I think Germany should have a 4th sub, somewhere in south Atlantic or Indian ocean. One thing is UK can protect her Indian trans and land DEI on UK 2, while doing other things.ma German sub in range of 30 or ? might do the trick. I like Russia having some resemblance of the far east group historically.
-
@Imperious-Leader said in [1942 SE] Balancing the game suggestion:
@8d88 well the bomber can be placed in Finland so it will only be used in 7, that makes for no disaster for Germany in 7 and not a ruined game. Its hard for Germany to fail in 7 and lose a plane or two and still allow a UK BB.
By moving it into Finland, you want to preserve Egyptian troops for UK1, right?
As far as I understand, OOB setup was making UK too much behind. So, requiring a boost when playing in a Tournament because Allies did not have 6 or 7 hours to get the upper hand.
I also believe LHTR 3.0 forbid any possible Sea Lion.
Which was possible OOB.
-
@baron-Münchhausen Well its to make the things Germany needs to do well-- without a disaster to have a good game. The margins are tight in sz 7, also to avoid piling on decisively in Egypt.
Regarding Sealion G2: Some guy says buy 2 CA and 2 AP and have the Medd BB attack the UK CA with 1 AP landing 1 Inf in Gibraltar. Landing 3-4 Tanks, 3-4 Men, 5 planes, and 3 CS SBs VS> UK builds of 7 inf, 1 fighter plus landing US bomber and all UK planes and 1 UK tank… I will try it 3 times in practice games, but i doubt it.
Suggested Topics
